disclaimer *another political thread.
To discuss the ethics or non-ethics of the social security system.
To discuss the ethics or non-ethics of the social security system.
I have no problem with helping those in need, but the system we have now is so corrupt that it is being abused way more than it is being used in a positive manner. Also, I think the churches have to shoulder some of the blame here. IF we, as churches, were doing our job meeting the needs of orphans and widows in their distress, serving "the least of these," we wouldn't seed social security.
Coach
I'm not so sure the churches deserve blame. I've never conducted a survey, but I get the impression that most people don't look to churches for help, particularly given our ever growing secular society. Even those that go to church are probably too embarrassed to ask people they see every week for help.
Or tax money progressively instead of putting a cap on it.A house built on demographic sand, and the tide is rising. It could have theoretically worked a bit longer IF the Boomers had more babies rather than less babies, AND the government hadn't aggressively expanded the benefits. But even then, somebody had to know that eventually, people would start having less babies, and the whole thing would come tumbling down.
I don't see a problem with ensuring minimumiving standards. If someone is fine with the minimum, more power to them. Sounds pretty crappy to me, though.As if it would even be moral to cultivate a culture of dependency by advertising a safety net for everybody, so they don't do for themselves what they ought to do for themselves. That's how you get the people weak and dependent on you.
Corrolation does not equal causation. It could well be that the churches quit giving and these governments stepped in rather than the other way around as presented in the article.It works the other way around. The greater the welfare state, the lesser the church attendance, and as welfare state spending goes up, religious charity goes down.
God Will Provide -- Unless the Government Gets There First - WSJ.com
i just want to thank all those in the workfield for the food stamps. its appreciated.
what about people who push out children just for the welfare checks? there will always be people who abuse the system.Hahaha.Oh man. I guess this is why I sweat, and slave away, and labour with great distress, so that I can support those that believe that working is too much of a bother.
How anyone can label a fund of money taken by the threat of force as "social security" is pure absurdity. Such a thing is both antisocial and completely insecure.
what about people who push out children just for the welfare checks? there will always be people who abuse the system.
A ponzi scheme of forced redistribution of something (saving for the future) that people should be doing for themselves anyways.
Certainly, that's true. And when is the state going to stop being an "enabler", probably never.
it wouldn't be America if they did.
Whatever happened to the Bush-era idea of redistributing a portion of SS taxes into private retirement investments anyway?
"Progressively" adds all kinds of administrative costs and problems. But I don't agree with the cap. If we're going to have a payroll tax at all, there should be no cap. Of course, I would have liked to see the system privatized so we could eventually eliminate the payroll tax completely.Or tax money progressively instead of putting a cap on it.
But it fails at ensuring minimum standards, and the price we pay for having it to begin with is a dumbed-down population which is taught that they don't have to be vigilant and take care of themselves. And for a democratic republic to remain a democratic republic, the people need to be vigilant. To say nothing of the coming economic crunch that it will put on us in our lifetime.I don't see a problem with ensuring minimumiving standards. If someone is fine with the minimum, more power to them. Sounds pretty crappy to me, though.
The Gruber-Hungerman study found that the New Deal spending was the likely cause of churches giving less money.Corrolation does not equal causation. It could well be that the churches quit giving and these governments stepped in rather than the other way around as presented in the article.